86CIVIL WAR HISTORY to ascertain what his opponent was really up to. Along the way, the author devotes full chapters to the preliminary battles at Brandy Station and Winchester . Many of the accounts from which Wheeler drew his material were published twenty years or more after the battle was fought. Recognizing that such eyewitness histories are sometimes combed with factual errors, the author has taken pains, he says, to identify the inaccuracies and remove them. He uses ellipses generously, to eliminate both the erroneous observations and unneeded words ofhis subjects. Having thus tested and tightened his quotations, he organized them chronologically and tied them together with his own connective prose, which is as admirable for its economy as for its clarity. So unobtrusive is Wheeler's writing, that it tends to blend with the quotations which surround it, creating a text that is almost seamless in its unity—a remarkable achievement indeed, considering that the book actually was constructed more on the model of a patchwork quilt. Unfortunately , the author (or perhaps the publisher) chose not to footnote his sources; therefore, the scholar is required to accept on faith Wheeler's accuracy in the use of his material. Not surprisingly, the author presents nothing new about the battle itself. Nor should the reader expect a fully developed history; the author's connective prose is too spare to provide a detailed account oftactics and troop movements, and the quotations which constitute the core of the book are much too anecdotal and personal to provide real perspective. Rather, the strength ofthe book lies in Wheeler's unerring ability to reconstruct familiar events through the eyes ofthe participants and civilians who were there. Through them the reader witnesses the romantic majesty and foolhardiness ofbattlefield charges, feels the horror ofseeing men being blown apart, and experiences the unspeakable fear, confusion, excitement, and din of the battle. Perhaps no other work leaves the reader with so strong a sense that he has actually experienced, vicariously at least, what it was like to be at Gettysburg on those first four, awful days of July, 1863. Donald E. Reynolds East Texas State University Confederate Navy Chief: Stephen R. Mallory. By Joseph T. Durkin, S. J. (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1987. Pp. vi, 446. $21.95) The C.S.S. Florida. By Frank Lawrence Owsley, Jr. (University, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 1987. Pp. 210. $15.95) In assessing the failure ofthe Confederacy perhaps historians have ignored the naval policy of Jeff Davis's government. Perhaps historians, like the Davis administration itself, have been too land-oriented. Two recent re- BOOK REVIEWS87 prints of chapters in Confederate naval history may help to redirect our assessment. Joseph Durkin's biography of Davis's secretary of the navy, Stephen Mallory, was first published in 1954. Short on interpretation, but solid in its research, this biography offers an insightful view into the routine operations of the Confederate government. For Jefferson Davis the choice of Mallory to be the Confederate secretary of the navy was an obvious and wise decision. Mallory satisfied the need to have a cabinet member from Florida and he had excellent experience in naval affairs at the national level. By being one of the cabinet officers who remained in office for the duration ofthe war, Mallory gave a continuity to the naval administration which so many other departments lacked. Mallory managed a relatively small navy of 4,800 men and 40 vessels at its zenith. His portion ofthe Confederate budget was only 4 percent and ranked his department just above the executive mansion in available funds. Nonetheless, he had to organize the manpower, direct purchases, and make policy. It was in the last category that he made an undeniable contribution. Mallory recognized that the Confederacy needed to break the Union blockade in orderto maintain trading lines with the outside world. Yet, the Confederacy lacked the means to construct a wooden fleet to challenge the Union Navy. Mallory, drawing on his enthusiasm for ironclads, recommended the construction ofmetal ships; it was to be a momentous decision for the North and the South, and for American naval history. It was he who pushed for the construction of...
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Jun 1, 1989
Douglas Clark Baxter + 1
